As mentioned last week, I will be presenting a paper at the ICMLG Conference in Bangkok, Thailand. The conference dates are 7–8 February 2013.

If you require any assistance with strategy, governance or related topics, and would like to take advantage of me being in the region, please let me know. I have time available immediately before and after the conference—and am happy to meet with Boards, CEOs or any leadership group in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong or Australia, if required.

Please contact me directly if you have a requirement.

Have you experienced the pure delight, the visual symphony, of looking to the horizon after reaching the pinnacle on a seemingly unending trek? When the view changes from the near detail of the next step to the overall context? Yesterday, I had exactly this experience with my research. After spending several weeks wading through a great pile of weighty tomes, academic articles and handwritten notes, feeling somewhat daunted by the seeming lack of progress, a penny dropped and the fog that'd been masking my view lifted.

All new knowledge needs to be built on a worldview (technically, an ontology and an epistemology). In my case, discovering the most suitable starting point for my governance research. I've been struggling with this, because the theory of knowledge doesn't come naturally to me at all. Much of the governance research to this point has employed positivist (financial analyses), post-positivist (structure and composition research) or constructionism (boardroom behaviour) worldviews.

Unfortunately, much of the research to date has revealed very little about the impact boards have on performance. Therefore, my work needed to look at the problem quite differently if any progress was to be made. The new lens finally became clear during a meeting with my Supervisor yesterday, when we explored a couple of seemingly left-field ideas that I'd been investigating in recent days. An intense 30-minute discussion around the whiteboard was all it took. The path forward became clear. And in case you're interested, the worldview is pragmatism, supported by a multiple-case study design and grounded theory.

With the launching point now clear (in my mind, at least!), it's time to pause for a coffee and admire the view, before heading onward and upward again to face the next challenge. Thank you to everyone who has encouraged me in recent weeks, I (now) appreciate it.

I get asked this question two or three times most months. Like any social institution, companies are complex and their success is subject to many variables. As far as I am aware, there are no cookie-cutter models that reliably deliver "point and shoot" type results. However, there are things company owners can do to increase the chance that their company will be successful. One of these is to establish a governance board. I'd like to suggest that a first board (or any board for that matter) can offer considerable value in three areas:

• First: strategy. Strategy is now widely (but not universally) accepted as a major role of the board. Owners are typically very busy, and they often can't see the wood for the trees. Also, many are not that good at generating or considering strategic options. A couple of carefully selected board members with well-developed strategy and critical thinking expertise can be really helpful to help understand the environment and set an appropriate course to navigate.
• Second: monitoring. Again, owners/shareholders are very busy! A board will help determine whether the company is performing to plan or not, and help sort out any remedial actions that may be required.
• Third: connections. Gaining access to resources (capital, skills, customers) can be a real challenge for smaller business owners. Directors can help in this regard, because most have a wide network of contacts and are happy to make introductions to secure access to much-needed resources.

These comments are offered in the context of owners of smaller companies becoming comfortable to "let go"—to open the financial records, to reveal the inner workings of the company, and to invite others to contribute to the generation of ideas and strategic options. These are all big hurdles for many owners. Yet they are hurdles which, if vaulted, can have big payoffs, through increased performance and a more sustainable future.

How does one get started down this path? Talking to people with experience is the best option in my opinion.  I am a strong advocate of professional bodies and organised networking groups. They are a good source of information, real-life stories, and, importantly, potential directors. Many of these groups schedule events where more experienced directors, researchers, business owners and CEOs to share case studies (good and bad), to help inform owners that might be considering an external board.

One final point. As an owner or shareholder you hold the control! You decide whether to establish a board or not, and you appoint the directors. And if things don't work as expected, you can (and should!) make changes.

Most decisions we make are subject to some form of bias or pre-conditioning. Most of us think we are straight thinkers, but our biases can mess with our heads and can cause us to make poor decisions. Business Insider just published a list of 61 (yes, sixty-one) behavioural biases that can compromise the quality of the decisions we make.

Read about them and how to deal with them here. It won't take long to work through them. I suspect the quality of the decisions you make tomorrow and in the future will be the better for it.

On paper, academics and practitioners agree that governance boards have two roles: future performance (strategy) and conformance. Yet in reality most Boards seem to expend most of their energy on conformance. Twenty-four days ago, a California lawyer, Douglas Y. Park, asked why Boards do this. Park's blogpost triggered a robust discussion on a LinkedIn group. Now, 324 comments later, a new model for governance seems to be emerging.

This might seem to be a rather minor event on the world's stage, however I think it is significant, for several reasons. I'll highlight two in particular. First, great minds from all around the world have shared their experiences and thoughts about the topic—without spending anything on travel, accommodation or conference fees. The speed of interaction and "reach" has been truly amazing. Second, in addition to purely commentating and critiquing, correspondents have worked together to create a new model. This is one of the first times I've seen an online discussion add such value.

If this example of going beyond "sharing" to "creating" is a bellwether of future learning and knowledge creation, we are in for an exciting ride!

One of my core motivations for embarking on my doctoral research is a deep belief that a link exists between good company performance and the 'two socials'—social progress and societal wellbeing. If companies can find ways to sustain high levels of performance, then society will be better for it. Getting ahead is good, we have all heard and read messages extolling the virtue. However, many have interpreted 'getting ahead' as getting rich—presumably to enjoy life to the max, without necessarily sharing the gains with others. The saying "He who dies with the most toys wins" comes to mind. This troubles me.

My faith in business leaders to do the right thing was restored somewhat this week however, when I read this article. With references to other studies, including a very good report published by Forbes, the authors suggest that mucking in and helping others is going mainstream. Leaders of successful businesses seem to be moving beyond selfish financial goals and beyond handing out cash, to helping out. This is inspiring stuff, and it should give us all hope. But more than that, it is a call to action. We all have a role to play—some as thinkers and 'thought' leaders, others as implementers and 'do' leaders. What role will you play?